Cole v. Sinclair

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE RICHARD LEONARD COLE , 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05089-RSM-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL STEPHEN SINCLAIR et al. , 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff, a prisoner of the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC), filed a 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against several DOC officials and now moves for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 21. There is generally no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

22 Plaintiff requests the Court to appoint counsel because he has no legal training and has mental health problems. However, Plaintiff has been able to craft and file a lengthy complaint detailing the events supporting his claims. The claims are not particularly complex nor is the law governing the claims. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not established there are “exceptional circumstances” to support appointment of counsel at this time and DENIES the motion without prejudice. Dkt. 21. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants.

6 DATED this 12th day of May 2021.

7 A BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA Chief United States Magistrate Judge